Skip to main content

About your Search

20130815
20130823
STATION
CSPAN 13
FOXNEWS 11
MSNBCW 10
CNNW 7
CSPAN2 7
MSNBC 7
KRCB (PBS) 5
CNN 4
KPIX (CBS) 3
FBC 2
KQED (PBS) 2
LINKTV 2
KCSM (PBS) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 108
French 1
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 109 (some duplicates have been removed)
fisa court, ordered the agency to destroy. the n.s.a. argues that the number of privacy violations is tiny compared to the 20 million data searches done every month in the hunt for terrorists. n.s.a. compliance director john delong told reporters by phone: t mistakes are routinely disclosed to the fisa court, to the justice department and to congress. >> .
not have to get advance notice from the fisa court. i propose before they do any kind of query, any kind of search, they have to go to the fisa court. and at that step in the process,
by the president and others that the fisa court had significant oversight, and we've heard from the chief judge of the fisa court who says that's not true.
the district court judge, reggie walton, said to you about the fisa court's authority when you asked him about this. explain that a little more. >> so he's the chief judge of the secret spy court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court, that is supposed to be the lynchpin for the checks and balances on our government spying programs. it takes it really seriously. it does everything in a classified, secret skiff, but
oversight to ensure all incidents of noncompliance are reported to oversight committees and fisa court and that appropriate steps are taken to ensure violations are not repeated. what should happen here?
of these were reported to the court. a portion them should have been that have to do with fisa authorities, when you're looking into americans' records and we honestly don't have the rest of the chain ton what was reported. what we coknow is there are thousands of them and the obama administration has assured us and the public before this came out that it happens infrequently, once in a while. >> warner: now, equally
and the fisa court in a timely and comprehensive manner and that appropriate steps are taken to ensure violations are not repeated. the report stems from an nsa audit obtained by the post from leaker edward snowden.
the idea in a fisa court you need opposing councilility, there needs to be somebody in there other than government lawyers? >> i think this should add fuel that we should be safely assured violations are happening and oversight is robust and full. as for whether a privacy advocate should be added to the court, that's really not my role. that's one of the things that's been mentioned on the hill. there are other people who have raised really good practical questions about how in the dead of night a privacy advocate can be summoned to weigh in on whether or not some collection can take place.
transparency but not to get too far. if you go to full transparency, you will have zero security. >> fisa -- >> they should have held hearings. it should've have been a more robust oversight board. now they will, that is good. the inspectors general can give more generic reports. congressional oversight committees, intelligence committees can talk about the subjects they are looking at without disclosing sources. john mclaughlin noted we do oversight hearings. even on the fisa court i would disagree with some of the panelists. they can release some things. they can release how many cases they get, how many are denied, how many are sent back for review. you can have periodic review by other bipartisan commissions that have credibility. you can do it incrementally but it is going to be difficult to swim against the general tide distrust of government. i would also be remiss if i didn't say i could not disagree with anthony romero more that snowden did as a service. i think he did this country and incredible disservice. we are now going to have slightly more transparency and better oversight
these thousands of violations for the report. we hoped that the fisa court would be a stopgap. but what the article says is that in another case, the foreign intelligence surveillance court which has authority over some nsa operations did not learn about a new collection med until it was in operation for many months. then the court when they learned about it, they ruled it it unconstitutional. so the gap between what they are doing and when they serve it it up to the court is another egregious violation in thmy min. >> this whole process that this administration has let get to this point really does have to be reviewed. i recognize a need for a lawful and efficient nsa operation. i think it's critical to the national security. but i do understand that there are bounds under which they are required not to cross, limits that they are required not to cross, and they can't cross those under the law and they shouldn't cross them. if the court needs more tools because we're counting on the fisa court to make sure that those bounds are not exceeded f that court needs more tools it it ought to
the underlying patriot act and the fisa amendments of 2008. i voted against the reauthorization of the so-called patriot act because i believed it was too loosely written, there was room for abuse. so i think we need to undertake lots of reforms. the amendment, i don't think, did the trick, frankly. i think there are much more important things we need to be doing. >> so are you comfortable with the fact what we know now, which is that the nsa does take in every phone call number in america on a daily basis, brings it all in, keeps it in case they need to go look at it, they'll need a judge's okay for that and now we're learning that, yeah, they did make mistakes, some of which were in violation of the constitution, a judge later found out. and yet 3,000 instances, 2,000 instances not big, except some of those instances involved 3,000 americans whose e-mails or phone calls were then monitored. >> right. and i think we need to make reforms to prevent that from happening. in fact i'm working on an initiative to do exactly that. so there's a distinction to be made between the collection of ra
-secret fisa court stepped in and ordered the nsa to change its collection methods. for more on this topic i was joined earlier by a senior attorney at the center for constitutional rights in new york and by brian dugan, technologist at the open technology institute in d.c. and i started by asking bryan about the government's claim that it is not fully aware of the extent of edward snowden's leaks. >> it is incredibly disturbing that they do not know what was taken, no audit trail was created. that is the type of abrogation of trust that the united states government needs to restore and that is why the president of the united states needs to instate an independent, external council of experts to review the nsa spying. on all these systems that edward snowden was using, they, by default, should be creating audit trails of every single action of every single administrator on the machine. edward snowden was not the top- level administrator of this machine. he happened to have access across domains at a top-secret security level. there is no excuse for any administrator to not keep logs of that
or fisa court. the collection was done under section 702. this is the collection that looks overseas at foreign internet communications, so foreign emails. the nsa did not have a good means technically speaking to separate out from that collection the information that was being put forth on the internet by u.s. persons. so you had what was called bundled communications. so when you open up your computer, and you look at your email, you see 20 emails down the screen. if one had come from a bad actor, the nsa was looking at overseas, they pulled down everything on that screen. what the fisa court said at the time when they were alerted to what was a significant collection problem, the judge said, quote, for the first time, the government has now advised the court the volume and nature of the information, it, the nsa, has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe. shortly after that, the nsa we were told on background was trying to work with congress to make changes to salvage that information. >> shepard: not only was the nsa spying on every
system to get a warrant. remember, the theme of this whole story has been that the fisa court is a rubber stamp. now the story today is, look at how the fisa court slammed the nsa, sort of like we have to pick which boat we want to ride on. the story today, the opinion today goes to underscore what folks like i have been saying all along, that the fisa court is not only looking at warrants, they are looking at the entire process of the system, and what was done in this application to say we want to keep going with the process is the fisa court went into extremely excruciating detail about is the nsa complying with the fourth amendment and the law? they found that, as you go down the system, what they are -- in the vast majority of it, but they have this one element of the program -- >> mean not getting americans' data if they can? >> no, not getting it kept in the system. that's it. >> right. >> and what they want is, no, that's not in compliance. >> okay. >> so the nsa went away and fixed it a month later. that's what we're dealing with, and they reported it to congress a month after tha
are reported to the oversight committees and the fisa court in a timely and comprehensive manner and that appropriate steps are taken to ensure violations are not repeated. the report stems from an nsa audit obtained by the post from leaker edward snowden. kelly o'donnell joins me now. what kind of privacy violations are we talking about? >> what we're learning so far, these are not instances of eavesdropping on conversations or reading e-mails. it's not that kind of thing. it's that big sweeping data collection we've been hearing a lot about in the last few months. phone numbers or those kind of data were swept up while the nsa was looking for foreign intelligence targets. sometimes this was sort of sloppy, unintentional mistakes where they put in the wrong area code and swept up a bunch of numbers that way or they had some sort of break in their own procedure. some of it, apparently, unintentional. but in some instances, the audits found that there were cases where they went too far and sometimes the fisa court that does oversee this pushed back and said they needed to adjust w
-gathering on americans was strictly limited and tightly overseen by the foreign intelligence surveillance-- or fisa-- court. but today, the "washington post" reported the spy agency has overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since congress expanded the agency's powers in 2008, and the fisa court's chief judge told the "post" his court doesn't have the ability to independently verify if the spy agency is complying fully with privacy-protection rules. the report was based on documents leaked by former n.s.a. contractor edward snowden. "washington post" correspondent carol leonnig worked on both stories and joins me now. carol, welcome. >> thank you, margaret. >> warner: first of all, what, sort of information has the n.s.a. been collecting and storing on americans that is beyond the scope of the law or the court rules? >> the court's rules are very strict on several things, but the most important is not intruding on americans' privacy when there is no reason to suspect that they have some link to terrorist organizations or are in communication with foreign powers. and the violat
something wrong, there is going to be a congressman or senator or a fisa court or an inspector general, there is going to be a general counsel, there is going to be a civil liberties protection officer, it that all of them, you can snow them all, and none will figure out that something is wrong, but in my experience, that is far from the case. i think the oversight is working in making sure people follow the rules. your question, is oversight working in terms of giving the public faith that the government is following the rules? i do think that is where we have a failing. -- it isot independent not an independent problem of government. look at polls of how much people trust congress. not especially high. there is a lack of faith in people doing things right. i think you can increase transparency. you cannot take it too far. if you go to full transparency like we do in other areas, we will have zero security. >> what can you do? the executive branch, what can you change? host: >> both administrations should have embraced the president civil liberties oversight board earlier than they di
with senator paul that the fisa court needs to hear both sides that we have to have a special advocate. a specific blueprint that i have offered which the president seemed to endorse. >> sing you bring it up, nsa director keith alexander was there at the end of last month, that they are complying with the law and there are appropriate checks and balances. i think it is important to understand the strict oversight that goes in on these programs. the assumption is that people are out there wheeling and dealing and nothing could be further from the truth. we have tremendous oversight and compliance with these programs. >> congressman, you are a staunch defender of these programs. it is clear that mistakes are being made and in many cases they are not reporting those mistakes. i fully disagree with what senator rand paul said. that was a grab bag coming from him. take rand paul's own numbers. it is not really true. but assume he is right for once. you jux oppose that with violations which were self reported. you are talking about 1900 of them being foreigners when they came to the u.s. it
king. i do, by the way, agree with senator paul that the fisa court needs to hear both sides that we have to have a special advocate. i'm very pleased that he has endorsed the concept. in fact, the specific blueprint that i have offered for a special advocate in the fisa courts which also the president seemed to endorse in his statement last week. >> john: since you bring it up. let me switch gears and go the to latest revelations about the nsa. keith alexander was in las vegas at the end of last month. again, he gave assurances that the nsa is complying with the law and that there are appropriate checks and balances. here is what he said. >> i think it's important to understand the strict oversight that goes in on these programs. because the assumption is that people are out there just wheeling and dealing. and nothing could be further from the truth. we have tremendous oversight and compliance in these programs. >> john: congressman king you are a staunch defender of the nsa and its programs. you quality people who work there quote patriots but would also appear very clear that mis
that a secret federal court on surveillance, called the the fisa court, ordered the agency to destroy. the n.s.a. argues that the number of privacy violations is tiny compared to the 20 million data searches done every month in the hunt for terrorists. n.s.a. compliance director john delong told reporters by phone: t mistakes are routinely disclosed to the fisa court, to the justice department and to congress. >> . >> reporter: but the fact that there are thousands of privacy breaches stunned many members of congress, including senator patrick leahy of vermont. >> i want to know if -- whether it's n.s.a. or anybody else that's made a mistake, we ought to know that. if they're tapping into people's telephones where they have no right to, we ought to know that. >> reporter: almost 20 billions are already pending in congress to limit the surveillance program, to protect american calls and e-mails, and to ins the n.s.a. reports to congress. scott, these new ra *ef hraeugss are likely to increase bipartisan support for top-to-bottom surveillance reform. >> pelley: and late today the white house s
had, he couldn't talk about it. >> so what we've said is we've never received fisa order from a fisa court, which is another type of letter. we've actually never disclosed we haven't received a national security letter. what i can say is that as a policy, whenever we received a letter like this, or some order that doesn't have supervision by a court, our policy is to always challenge it in court. to always go to court and say, this is something that a court needs to sign off on. because due process is an extremely important concept. and due process means that you have to have checks on an executive branch with a judicial branch overseeing what's going on. >> can you say how many times you've gone to court to challenge? >> i can't actually. i can't even actually tell you -- >> for legal reasons? >> these get into very challenging corner cases. this is the absurdity of this. there's a lot of talk that tech companies should just come out and say, we've received this, what are they going to do? are they going to come and lock me up? in some ways that would be the best possible way -- >>
of the fisa judges found out about a program not disclosed to the court. it is violation of the fourth amendment of the united states constitution. stop it and best i can tell, there is no evidence that it was ever stopped. this thing is only going to grow and it is not a phony scandal, is it? >> 69 percent of americans as a matter of fact in the latest fox news poll said it is a serious scandal and not a phony scandal. and that is only ten points behind the list of benghazi. president learning to be out with it and take your medicine and admit mistakes and take the medicine and move on. slow walking it and hiding it, you get in more trouble. >> chris, thanks. >> you bet. >> now questions on whether one of the president's biggest health care promises is going bully up. planned parent hood received hundreds of thousands of federal money. we investigate. >> teen choice awards is the last place to expect a speech on conservative values. wait until you hear what this hollywood star shared with teen fans. >> the u.s. government releases class foyed documents on the infamous area 51. we have
. in another, the fisa court, which has authority over some nsa operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation many months. the court then ruled it unconstitutional. i think that is incredibly damning, the fact that these operations were already under way and post hoc the court says this is a violation of the constitution. >> this is clearly going to have an impact on capitol hill. lawmakers will have a hard time ignoring this because of the response you've seen from the general public and the senate judiciary chairman, patrick leahy, announced today that he was going to hold a hearing into this. so what we've seen since these revelations came to light when lawmakers said what are you worried about, this happens all the time. now they're being forced to say, no, we need more oversight because a lot of times lawmakers don't want to get in the middle of the stuff, they want the nsa to do their work and nobody wants to be seen as disrupting an effort -- >> nobody wants to be seen as weak on terror, right? and that is -- i've said this over again. t
is probable cause. there was no probable cause. >> eric: worse than that, star, they go through the fisa court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court and there is nothing foreign about a lot of americans data mined. >> governments are becoming suspicious about the overreach. the i.r.s. looking at us in a different way. depending on your persuasion. what incompetence to say we are listening to egypt at country code and you listen to 202, which is washington, d.c. the bureaucrats are out of control. i'm glad we are looking more closely to what is happening in the security arena. >> connect dots here. the i.r.s. admitted to being scandalous. f.b.i. told to us turn on the cell phone if they want to remotely. any question what is going o with the data they are holding? >> who knows what they are doing with it? they are evading a real war. the snooping and the spyi on americans is an invasion of the actual enemy, jihad and state sponsored islam. the egyptians are denouncing it. we can't make up our mind on the muslim brotherhood? so we have to worry about our own government spying and actively
transparency, you will have zero security. -- fisa, -- >> they should have held hearings. it should've have been a more robust oversight board. now they will, that is good. the inspectors general can give more generic reports. congressional oversight committees, intelligence committees can talk about the subjects they are looking at without disclosing sources. john maclachlan noted we do oversight hearings. even on the fisa court i would agree -- disagree with some of the panelists. they can release some things. they can release how many cases they get, how many are denied, how many are sent back for review. you can have periodic review by other bipartisan commissions that have credibility. you can do it incrementally but it is going to be difficult to swim against the general tide of distrust of government. i would also be remiss if i didn't say i could not disagree with anthony romero more that snowden did as a service. i think he did this country and incredible disservice. we are now going to have slightly more transparency and better oversight and that is a good thing. i refused to give
are reported to oversight committees and fisa court and that appropriate steps are taken to ensure violations are not repeated. what should happen here? >> i agree with everything that's been said, but this isn't exactly distaupian stuff, a lot of mistakes, 10% are typographical errors, a big batch was chinese people who were overseas, being monitored, then they came to the united states for a holiday, and nsa has no way to know they're coming here, but the basic problem is you're trusting a bureaucracy and trusting it with extremely sensitive data, essentially you don't want to go too far here, but basically to list itself. there is some accountability with the intelligence committees and with the secret fisa court, but the entire program needs to be more fully subjected to checks, balances and transparency of our madisonian system of government. >> talking about a government many say has run amuck. another example, climate change, that they're going to end run around congress to implement climate change policies. a recent statement by sally jewel, new secretary of the interior, what she sai
the previous administration. this program is being done with the supervision and warrants granted by the fisa court. and in a couple of instances we know from the audit report. the court slapped down two different nsa programs but at the end of the day. this is something that the public still supports by large, large measure. if you listen to law enforcement it is interrupting terrorist plots. >> laura: can you live in a police state and have no terrorist plots or very few. that's not what we want either of. >> by definition we don't have a court supervision. you don't have a system where the courts. >> laura: here is the problem. this audit and matt, can you chime in on this. this audit only applied to one facility. the fort mead nsa operation, right? one. this was 200776 instances of unauthorized storage collection, and access to information now, given the public's distrust of how the government operates after the irs deal and now drip, drip, drip on this. matt, can you blame people for being very suspicious of this and very concerned? >> no. consider that not only is the president looking
in an unconstitutional manner. >> doug: that raises another interesting question about the fisa court. it's not adversarial body. it's -- i suppose swa akin to grand jury, where that old expression you can indict a ham sandwich exists. do there need to be changes there? does it need to be an adversarial proceeding or more open? >> it needs more scrutiny by members of congress. we don't need to have every decision the fisa court makes on the front page of the local newspaper. but i think it has to be some accountability back to citizens and member of senate and the house. there has to be unfettered way in which our elected officials the request make sure the programs are not tramplalling all over the constitutional rights of americans. many of us believe they are. all in the name of national security, which we all want. but we have allowed ourselves to be frisked and searched at airports through tsa. i don't know that anybody can tell us one time when the tsa has caught a terrorist at the airport check point. hot dog vendors in times square caught more terrorists than the thousands of the
, is inally in recent weeks the interest of fisa, and this , andsked multiple times you can get an answer from your representative, but they cannot say anything about it. this is troubling to me as a young republican to see these kinds of ramps happened. >> did you see the town hall we showed? there is a comment of his that is physically addresses the nsa issue. we go to karen on the democrats line. >> this is karen. i was at a town hall meeting with senator grassley. he said it was a government run , and near the end of the meeting i said that is incorrect. meant 10 years from now. halls are justn to promote him. would the a they lot better if you could follow- up with questions and ask representatives what they are going to do. not correct people when they had an erroneous view. affect people not at all. obamacare last? >> i just think it is promotional. >> thanks for that call. we spoke about a story of what awaits the president when he returns. of the most important issues they talk about is the new with congress. the most important short-term is in agreement with congress. obama plans a b
's privacy. explain this ruling from the secret court called fisa court, the most secret court in federal government. what is the significance of these documents that have been released by the nsa? >> well, the court essentially was very angry at the government, because he said you've been collecting all this data on americans which have nothing to do with terrorism, completely domestic. the nsa is supposed to be focused on foreign communications. you've been misrepresenting what you've been doing to the court for three years, essentially. the nsa was essentially sending its machines, the computers that it was collecting its stuff that essentially -- you communicating with someone in al qaeda, yemen, for instance, completely your do mistic communications with other people. >> in this country? >> in this country it's not necessarily the content. it was taking care -- and it wasn't doing that. >> this went on for three years? >> for tli years. october 2011, the nsa finally comes to the judge and explains what they've been doing. the judge was very angry and said, well, you know, tell us how
that to the fisa court. the court ordered them to, a, fix the problem and figure out where it was so it wouldn't happen again and, b, to immediately destroy all of the records. there are safeguards in the system. we as a public don't know all of what's going on in this but we do know there's a system in place by which the intelligence agencies have to report these miss steps to the fisa court and is it can make them make changes and it terminated the program. >> karl, the system that's in place has failed on multiple occasions. now we've got thousands and god knows how many e-mail records, telephone records, texts being looked at. look, here's the thing. i think the american people believe in stopping and preventing terrorism pretty much at any cost. if this program is in the right hands, no problems. the problem is it's potentially in the wrong hands. you have a president who's repeatedly light to the people. i'll cut the deficit in the half. if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. all lies. you have an attorney general who has lied about fast and furious. he's lied about getting
was exposed by it. but these were collected and the fisa court judge did not know about it and he rebuked the nsa for doing that and they said they were unintentional errors. >> we have been talking for a while about the nsa, how they're saying trust us, we're not doing anything illegal. the stuff that was declassified yesterday said they didn't break some laws. they violated -- the nsa violated the constitution three times in three years. violated the constitution because they did as brian said go through our e-mails, domestic e-mails, rather than just the foreign stuff. remember, it was original i will supposed to be the foreign -- it was supposed to be the foreign stuff. and plus they say that the government made a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of the collection program. in other words, this is coming from fisa itself, the court, where fisa says they couldn't trust the nsa. how extraordinary is that? >> what is interesting in addition to that, the court is saying they can't trust the nsa. this is definitely happening. it's unconstitutional and then the white house i
, there's going to be a pice saw court, there's going to be an inspector general -- fisa court. it is possible that all of them could get snowed in -- sorry. [laughter] that all of them can be, you know, you can snow them all, and none of them will figure out something's going wrong. but my experience, it's far from the case. so i think the oversight is working in terms of making sure people are following rules. your question is oversight working in terms of giving the public faith that the government is following rules, i do think that's where we have, we have a tailing. and that's not independent, it's not an independent problem of government. look at polls of how much people congress. not especially high. so there's a lack of faith if people doing things -- in people doing things right. i think you can increase transparency. if you go to full transparency like in other areas, we will have -- >> this is where i want to get, what what can you do? [inaudible conversations] >> the obama administration should have embraced the president's civil liberties oversight board earlier t
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 109 (some duplicates have been removed)